I doubt it, he's been beyond loyal since 1991, basically 29 years. But as the old saying goes. Never say never. I think it's more he's doing some stuff alone in next few months and it's not WWE funded. Just legal reasons that we might not know about.

So it seems the Conservative strategy of "Lab/SNP in bed together" along with Shy Tory and likely UKIP voters having a change of heart at the last minute paid off.

We have a scenario now where the Tories plan for massive austerity and an EU referendum is going to clash with the SNP's pro-EU and anti-austerity message. Coupled with the Tories "Literally worse than Hitler" reputation in Scotland, are we looking at another indyref in the next few years?

SNP would rather imbibe Thatcher's ashes than work with the Tories regardless. Their already pretty pissed about that story by the Telegraph stating Sturgeon would prefer Cameron to be re-elected.

As for Labour, I think the reason why some in England are averse to working with the SNP is that at least until recently, they came off as only caring for Scotland's interest and leaving the rest of the UK in the lurch. It also wasn't helped by Salmond's antics during the referendum where he came off as a boorish nationalist saying "Fuck you got mine" to the rest of the UK, which is good for riling up the base in a regional referendum, but would reflect poorly in a national election.

With Sturgeon though, she comes off as being much more savvy than Salmond and knows how to address politics on a UK-wide level. I think part of the reason she "won" the debates is that she is willing to work together with the UK both to end austerity and get the UK's federalization kickstarted at long last rather than demand referendum after referendum as some believe is the SNP's real goal.

Which goes to show why the whole concept of image and "charisma" as a means of choosing elected leaders is beyond inane.

For comparison's sake, I consider Dwight Eisenhower to be probably one of our nation's greatest presidents, yet I doubt he'd be able to shed the "old white codger" image were he to run in the modern day.

Anyway, Cameron's only hope is that he can get more seats than Labour and that the Lib Dems don't bleed enough in order to form another coalition, otherwise every other party will immediately issue a vote of no confidence if he tries to form a minority government.

Supposedly, the reason the Scots are pushing for the SNP is that by placing them as the Kingmaker for whoever forms the next government, they can guarantee further devolution than the ones currently being offered by the Smith Commission.

Though it should be noted that much of the SNP support is more for their domestic policies than independence, someone commented that there is a lot of tactical voting in using the SNP to further the federalization process in the UK, but would still vote against any prospect of independence in the short term (And besides, another referendum is still London's call)

Labour does seem more likely to grant the Scots more than what the Tories are offering on the table in the devolution talks, so I could see the SNP willing to hold their nose and go with a coalition to make the most of it, considering another referendum isn't coming for at least a couple decades.

My question is how would the SNP's more left-leaning supporters react to such a deal. From the perspective of many in Scotland, Labour are basically "Red Tories".

It does seem UKIP is starting to lose a bit of steam just by Farage opening his mouth. The question is how much the SNP is going to be a factor, and last I checked their constituents are not exactly on good terms with Labour either which complicates any possible coalition.

So with everyone going over that one poll that predicts the SNP will destroy Labour at the next general election, is that going to lead to possibly a Tory-Labour coalition to counter both the SNP and UKIP?

Considering Ashley likely wants the Rangers brand added to his empire, this good news or bad news for them? Kind of doubt they'll be happy if he changes Ibrox's name to Sport Direct Park or something, and Newcastle hasn't exactly been benefiting under his ownership. On the other hand, they do seriously need the money to avoid another round of administration

It's less regarding the referendum, (I think both Rangers and Celtic fans were divided regarding who voted, though of course there was the usual quisling mudslinging over who voted which), more I suppose the general attitude of some of the more vocal fans.

Celtic from my perspective tends to pride itself as being the knights in shining armor of Scottish football compared to the dirty Huns of Ibrox. Granted, Celtic fans do seem to be better at policing themselves compared to Rangers fans, that riot at the '08 Europa League final in Manchester sure didn't help their reputation. At the same token though, it strikes me odd that Celtic fans decry Rangers fans whenever they sing the Billy Boys of Bridgeton, but decried the SNP after they issued a crackdown on pro-IRA/UVF songs in stadiums. (And I understand of course that the majority of Celtic/Rangers fans don't get into the usual sectarian pissing contest, these days at least).

Also, I heard that when Rangers got liquidated, Celtic fans gloated as saying they don't need the Huns anymore. Yet other reports are saying Celtic and by extension the SPFL kind of misses the money and media time that the Old Firm brings. (Though on the other hand, I think this season is the first time a team other than the Old Firm has been on the top of the table so far).